Why the fuss about WinRT on ARM and alternative browsers?

People and the regulators are perfectly happy with walled gardens and even prefer it

The same excuse is always given for a lot of other things of this sort.

Do you think the Auto Industry failed to make the same kinds of arguments to protect its auto parts garden?

It always looks so good -- the Commissars will provide for us all. We don't have to think. Just pay more monthly fee for that black rotary phone in the corner and all is well. Why change? And, at first, the promise can even seem to be fulfilled.

What hasn't happened, yet, is the downsides becoming visible. They're coming. It will take a while, but they're coming.

We'll see Apple and Microsoft, at least, impede all kinds of businesses and would be businesses. To the extent Google does as well, they can catch their bricks, too.

Like the now long ago example of the astronomy app that Apple allowed 3 versions, but not 4. it seems to me exceedingly likely that this was an arbitrary decision and the app provider knew its customers better than Apple. This is inefficient and counter to consumer interests.

Moreover, it is hard for consumers to value that which they never get. The law accounts for this. A lot of folks were happy to the very end with that black rotary phone in the corner. But, overall, we came to realize we didn't, and shouldn't, have to wait on AT&T to improve our phones.

But, more fundamentally, when they start cutting off Browsers and like middleware, they are being pretty obviously and directly anti-competitive. Browser wars have been litigated in multiple jurisdictions now, so we're entitled to presume that these things are suspect. As well we should.

What is the obligation of a company in terms of its walled garden? Thinking out loud, a company should be free to create its own ecosystem and its rules for how it allows others to write software for it. I don't see any justification for forcing a company to destroy its walls.

If Microsoft had taken this approach at any time in its heyday, I think you'd have learned quickly enough to change your tune.

I disagree. Here Apple (and MS?) own the whole widget. In the past (and in the case of Android), they don't. I think there is an important distinction between Apple (and MS?) controlling its widget and what gets installed and Android telling phone manufacturers (Samsung) that they have to only install Chrome or they will lose their license.

I disagree. Here Apple (and MS?) own the whole widget. In the past (and in the case of Android), they don't

I don't think MS plans to own the whole widget.

But, from a standpoint of consumer choice, that's not a meaningful or important distinction. If anything, one could argue that Apple's "whole widget" ownership makes the situation more ripe for abuse. But, it is certainly no better.

And, don't forget that MS plans to architect its WOA devices such that you can't even boot anything Microsoft doesn't approve. So, I really fail to see that there's that big a distinction here. If MS had produced PCs in a big way, they should have been just as liable for their browser behavior if they had not.

This is a lot of control being asserted here. Control we haven't allowed before and I suspect we ultimately won't allow here. Once you get into the hundreds of millions of device range, the defense of "well, you can buy some other device" really doesn't ring as true as you might think.

And, if Google is insisting on having Chrome, that's not very good. But, it is a step removed from you can't install anything else. I'm much more concerned about the latter. If Chrome is taking up space, but I can easily use something else, that's not as big a deal unless Chrome eats up 20 per cent of my disk space or something like that.

In any case, just because I buy a product doesn't meant that the company I bought it from forever owns all aspects of the relationship.

I disagree. Here Apple (and MS?) own the whole widget. In the past (and in the case of Android), they don't

I don't think MS plans to own the whole widget.

But, from a standpoint of consumer choice, that's not a meaningful or important distinction. If anything, one could argue that Apple's "whole widget" ownership makes the situation more ripe for abuse. But, it is certainly no better.

And, don't forget that MS plans to architect its WOA devices such that you can't even boot anything Microsoft doesn't approve. So, I really fail to see that there's that big a distinction here.

This is a lot of control being asserted here. Control we haven't allowed before and I suspect we ultimately won't allow here. Once you get into the hundreds of millions of device range, the defense of "well, you can buy some other device" really doesn't ring as true as you might think.

Just because I buy a product doesn't meant that the company I bought it from forever owns all aspects of the relationship.

It is a drastic thing to say that a manufacturer of a product *must* open its API/technologies in a way it doesn't want to do, unless this is a natural monopoly, public good, etc. That is the heavy hand of the government indeed.

I think the distinction means a lot. Even if Apple captures 100% of the tablet market, I don't see the principle in forcing it to open its APIs. On the other hand, if it has 100% of the digital content distribution market, and uses it to gain an advantage in iOS (or vice-versa), then they should be stopped.

This is a lot of control being asserted here. Control we haven't allowed before and I suspect we ultimately won't allow here. Once you get into the hundreds of millions of device range, the defense of "well, you can buy some other device" really doesn't ring as true as you might think.

It is a drastic thing to say that a manufacturer of a product *must* open its API/technologies in a way it doesn't want to do, unless this is a natural monopoly, public good, etc. That is the heavy hand of the government indeed.

Bosh. It's been done many times. That's a common anti-trust remedy in fact. Both AT&T and IBM had to suffer this several times.

I don't see why companies should have this kind of power over real, living human beings nor over smaller companies.

What meat have they eaten that they get to decide what products from other companies live and which die (and by anonymous little corporate drones at that)?

This is a lot of control being asserted here. Control we haven't allowed before and I suspect we ultimately won't allow here. Once you get into the hundreds of millions of device range, the defense of "well, you can buy some other device" really doesn't ring as true as you might think.

You're talking about Apple, right?

But the thing is, you can buy other devices. The big problem would be if Apple (or somebody became so big-monopoly power) that it would leverage that to prevent entry or gain other markets.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal, remember. You get into trouble by using the market power that comes from it to prevent new competition or to gain other markets. This is a very important difference.

We don't want to break up/punish a company for being so much better than others that it holds a monopoly. We want to punish the company that uses bullying and tie-ins that prevent others from competing at all, under threats that can be made only if you are a monopoly.

Yep, and you can also buy arm devices not running windows. Noone is forcing you to pick a windows tablet. If you want to run Firefox on your arm device, feel free to go and buy plethora of android devices out there. MS has 0 market power and leverage in this sector and all this talk if antitrust is frankly laughable since there is a lot of competition.

MS has 0 market power and leverage in this sector and all this talk if antitrust is frankly laughable since there is a lot of competition.

Presently, that's true. But, it could change later this year.

And, it is still known bad behavior whomever does it.

Moreover, the remedy of "buying another device" is really kind of a ridiculous counter-argument. If my choice turns out to be between Apple and Apple or even between Apple and Microsoft, I'm just exchanging one garden for another. And, anti-trust applies to oligopolies, too.

Moreover, at any market share, this is a lot of power to give someone. Anti-trust is about behavior, not absolute share.

Again, what meat have these companies eaten that they have life and death powers over other companies?

As far as I know, you can get third party auto parts regardless of the market share of the company involved.

MS has 0 market power and leverage in this sector and all this talk if antitrust is frankly laughable since there is a lot of competition.

Presently, that's true. But, it could change later this year.

And, it is still known bad behavior whomever does it.

Moreover, the remedy of "buying another device" is really kind of a ridiculous counter-argument. If my choice turns out to be between Apple and Apple or even between Apple and Microsoft, I'm just exchanging one garden for another. And, anti-trust applies to oligopolies, too.

Moreover, at any market share, this is a lot of power to give someone. Anti-trust is about behavior, not absolute share.

Again, what meat have these companies eaten that they have life and death powers over other companies?

As far as I know, you can get third party auto parts regardless of the market share of the company involved.

I agree with the principle of antitrust, but that is not to say that Firefox has some *right* to exist in iOS or in MS's mobile OS. That is an argument for no rules on API access at all, and for the government to force all device manufacturers to basically have no control over their widgets.

Moreover, the remedy of "buying another device" is really kind of a ridiculous counter-argument. If my choice turns out to be between Apple and Apple or even between Apple and Microsoft, I'm just exchanging one garden for another. And, anti-trust applies to oligopolies, too.

But it's not is it? You can buy from plethora of Android devices and run Firefox to your hearts content. And if any of your other comments were worth anything, then Apple would have got done by anti-trust by now. Clearly the regulators are happy so I don't see how MS would get done by anti-trust either.

Also there were a few comments about how CPU architecture doesn't matter and tablets and PC market are the same and thus MS could get done by anti-trust.

OK, let's look at both scenarios

Case 1)PCs and ARM are in the same market: In this case, with the rise of Android and ARM devices, MS no longer holds dominant control over the market and thus anti-trust is not needed because every time I read the news it's all about how Android and iOS is taking over the world and how Windows is dead.

Case 2)PCs and ARM devices are in separate markets: In this case MS holds 0 leverage in the ARM world as seen by the inability of WP to take off. Since it has 0 market power, anti-trust doesn't apply.

I agree with the principle of antitrust, but that is not to say that Firefox has some *right* to exist in iOS or in MS's mobile OS. That is an argument for no rules on API access at all, and for the government to force all device manufacturers to basically have no control over their widgets.

This has, as I have already pointed out, been managed many times. In the case of IBM and AT&T, it been managed for physical hardware connections.

IBM and AT&T both cried foul as you did. Oh no, they said, they will Damage the Phone Network. Oh No, they will Damage Our Computers.

The government told them to get on with it. They did and the problems were so significant. . .that I bet no one here even remembers the cases and the remedies.

In short, this is the easy part. The companies were allowed to do reasonable things; the phone company used to require isolation transformers/inductors (eventually, they dropped even that). There's always a way; it's a matter of will, not true technical challenge.

And, by the way, nobody here is even asking for kernel access. Given remotely modern CPUs, then there should really be no problem. If the API is public and outside of the kernel, then everyone should get it. If it is hidden inside of the kernel, then except for maybe the special case of device drivers, nobody should get it. We've been doing this for about 50 years now, in software. This is no novel issue.

If Apple hasn't been done with their bigger share, then there is no way MS is going be done. For all the talk about economic theory etc, that's what it comes down to at the end of the day. And that's why I see the hypocrisy in attacking MS when everyone willingly bought into Apple's way of doing things.

I agree with the principle of antitrust, but that is not to say that Firefox has some *right* to exist in iOS or in MS's mobile OS. That is an argument for no rules on API access at all, and for the government to force all device manufacturers to basically have no control over their widgets.

This has, as I have already pointed out, been managed many times. In the case of IBM and AT&T, it been managed for physical hardware connections.

IBM and AT&T both cried foul as you did. Oh no, they said, they will Damage the Phone Network. Oh No, they will Damage Our Computers.

The government told them to get on with it. They did and the problems were so significant. . .that I bet no one here even remembers the cases and the remedies.

In short, this is the easy part. The companies were allowed to do reasonable things; the phone company used to require isolation transformers/inductors (eventually, they dropped even that). There's always a way; it's a matter of will, not true technical challenge.

And, by the way, nobody here is even asking for kernel access. Given remotely modern CPUs, then there should really be no problem. If the API is public and outside of the kernel, then everyone should get it. If it is hidden inside of the kernel, then except for maybe the special case of device drivers, nobody should get it. We've been doing this for about 50 years now, in software. This is no novel issue.

But the API's are not public. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be OK for MS or Apple to block access to public API for a browser. As long as the public/private API division is consistent for all apps, then there is no issue. The question here is why would the government step in and force an OS maker to make their private APIs open under some antitrust justification.

OTOH the last thing Microsoft wants is someone buying a Windows RT tablet, downloading FF desktop edition then creating a "Windows tablet has shit battery life compared to iPad" headline. They've got tools and restrictions for WinRT apps, FF could download and hammer away at a registry key all day and there's nothing Microsoft could do about it.

So Microsoft has this superiority complex where it thinks no software other than its own can be efficient?

It's about being able to make guarantees. If you enable certain things, then you make it impossible to make such guarantees. For example, allowing arbitrary background processes. Sure if *every single developer that uses them does the right thing* then everything is fine. But if a single developer does the wrong thing, then the user suffers.

This has been the model for OSs for a while and it has proven itself insufficient for the mobile expectations that users have. Limiting what 3rd parties can do on the OS is absolutely reasonable to ensure certain things for the user. And limitations are the only path that have worked given all the things that MS and others have tried over hte years.

Quote:

Quote:

Pretty sure this wouldn't even be a "thing" if the Windows RT desktop didn't exist.

If they did, then MS would have to support Win32 on ARM for at least another 10+ years. And they would not be able to change it and fix it as appropriate going forward. This approach allows them to deprecate it ASAP as they expand upon WinRT to fill the gaps between the two that currently exist.

If MS owns all the Win32 software on arm, then they can change Win32 as they see fit and just fix up all their software. If there are 3rd parties running on Win32 on ARM, then MS is screwed.

So Microsoft has this superiority complex where no software other than its own can be efficient?

I'd say they more have years of experience of pleading with developers v.v. nicely to write efficient Win32 software with no visible effect.

Exactly. There have been numerous improvements and new APIs provided to make apps good citizens on Windows. For example, timer coalescing provides huge benefits to battery life. Uptake by developers? About incredibly minor. And all you need is *1* bad app to ruin things for everyone else.

It would be awesome if some people here read TheOldNewThing and saw what happens any time you give an app an escape hatch. You know what happens? Apps start abusing it and the user suffers.

Why not? Are you going to claim MS has a monopoly in ARM world even though they have close to 0 percent share?

Why split hairs on the CPU architecture?

Why not? It's no different than how the DOJ split hairs when determining that MS was a monopoly. They shut out Apple's OS, for example, because it was running on a different architecture.

They shut out Linux and other Unices because of functionality they claimed it had *that Windows also has*. Ultimately, any line you draw is arbitrary. Given that this is a new OS that doesn't run on the same machines that Windows runs on, it seems reasonable to say it's a different market.

Otherwise, we should say that Windows no longer has a monopoly because of the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there now.

But the API's are not public. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be OK for MS or Apple to block access to public API for a browser. As long as the public/private API division is consistent for all apps, then there is no issue. The question here is why would the government step in and force an OS maker to make their private APIs open under some antitrust justification.

I want to hammer this point home. Win32 on WindowsRT is *not* a public API. It's a private API that only the OS and OS apps has access to. IE/Office and the rest on WindowsRT are *OS* apps. There's a reason that Office is shipping with the OS and isn't something you get by buying and adding to the system.

As a private API MS can vastly de-invest in it and deprecate it as it ramps the actual WinRT API up. However, it can't do that as a public API that is needs to give 10+ years of back compat support for. My guess is that it has 3-5 years left, and will become more and more marginalized. However, to do that, MS absolutely must have it as a private API.

People may think this is splitting hairs. But it's absolutely a consequence of previous court battles and is based precisely on what the courts specified MS could or could not do.

It's an odd complaint since alternative browsers are allowed, just not in the legacy desktop side.

There's no practical way to write a competent browser that doesn't use APIs that are banned for Metro apps. The special-case browser apps are allowed to do a hell of a lot more than any other Metro app.

But the API's are not public. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be OK for MS or Apple to block access to public API for a browser. As long as the public/private API division is consistent for all apps, then there is no issue. The question here is why would the government step in and force an OS maker to make their private APIs open under some antitrust justification.

I want to hammer this point home. Win32 on WindowsRT is *not* a public API. It's a private API that only the OS and OS apps has access to. IE/Office and the rest on WindowsRT are *OS* apps. There's a reason that Office is shipping with the OS and isn't something you get by buying and adding to the system.

Yes, there is; the mistaken belief that it'll transform WOA into an iPad killer.

Quote:

As a private API MS can vastly de-invest in it and deprecate it as it ramps the actual WinRT API up. However, it can't do that as a public API that is needs to give 10+ years of back compat support for. My guess is that it has 3-5 years left, and will become more and more marginalized. However, to do that, MS absolutely must have it as a private API.

x86 needs Win32, WinRT needs Win32, and forking Win32 into a WOA version and an x64 version would be asinine.

But the API's are not public. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be OK for MS or Apple to block access to public API for a browser. As long as the public/private API division is consistent for all apps, then there is no issue. The question here is why would the government step in and force an OS maker to make their private APIs open under some antitrust justification.

I want to hammer this point home. Win32 on WindowsRT is *not* a public API. It's a private API that only the OS and OS apps has access to. IE/Office and the rest on WindowsRT are *OS* apps. There's a reason that Office is shipping with the OS and isn't something you get by buying and adding to the system.

Yes, there is; the mistaken belief that it'll transform WOA into an iPad killer.

I'm sure that's an additional benefit.

Quote:

Quote:

As a private API MS can vastly de-invest in it and deprecate it as it ramps the actual WinRT API up. However, it can't do that as a public API that is needs to give 10+ years of back compat support for. My guess is that it has 3-5 years left, and will become more and more marginalized. However, to do that, MS absolutely must have it as a private API.

x86 needs Win32, WinRT needs Win32, and forking Win32 into a WOA version and an x64 version would be asinine.

Win32 on WindowsRT has already changed. WinRT needs some parts of Win32, but WinRT is happy to sit on a small part of it, and WinRT is happy to change to deal with changes to Win32.

x86 needs Win32, WinRT needs Win32, and forking Win32 into a WOA version and an x64 version would be asinine.

I don't think that's the point. I believe that, as soon as Office is completely Metroized, desktop support for Windows RT will be dropped quicker than you can say "wut".

And that will make Windows RT a fully Metro platform, to be followed that way by Windows on x86 shortly thereafter.

Yup. Furthermore, by owning 100% of the Win32 software on WindowsRT, MS can do things like measure *exactly* what parts of Win32 are used and what are not and remove those parts. It also helps prioritize which parts of Win32 today should migrate to be full WinRT APIs.

No, you're asking for third party apps to be able implement JIT compilers, which means you're asking for third party apps to be granted permission to mark memory regions as executable at runtime. This weakens protections against code injection, which is a very real security threat. With the appliance-like computing model represented by iOS and Windows RT, the OS vendor is taking on quite a bit of responsibility for keeping users safe. Many users seem to find this attractive. Not allowing JIT compilation is part of this. You want to step in and tell users this isn't a valid decision for them to make; that browser choice is more important than security. Who are you to make this decision on behalf of others?

Put another way, since there is no monopoly in this market, why shouldn't we let different platforms make different security/choice tradeoffs? It just becomes another axis of competition.

x86 needs Win32, WinRT needs Win32, and forking Win32 into a WOA version and an x64 version would be asinine.

I don't think that's the point. I believe that, as soon as Office is completely Metroized, desktop support for Windows RT will be dropped quicker than you can say "wut".

I'm sure it will, but Win32's still going to be there, because WinRT needs it.

WinRT needs some parts of it currently. But, as i mentioned to you in a previous thread, the intent is to migrate all that functionality away from Win32 from version to version. Right now Win32 on WindowsRT already is different and has removals and changes. Not allowing additional parties to take dependencies on this API means that MS can still preserve important things (like battery life) while steadily removing parts of it as WinRT gets fleshed out.

This is similar to the early days of iOS when the actual iOS APIs were missing many things. But year after year Apple slowly and steadily fleshed out those APIs.

WinRT right now is sufficient for many sorts of Apps (with thousands of dev shops using it successfully). However, there are some areas that haven't made it over yet. Based on customer demand and needs of MS apps, those areas will be prioritized for future WinRT versions.

But the API's are not public. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be OK for MS or Apple to block access to public API for a browser. As long as the public/private API division is consistent for all apps, then there is no issue. The question here is why would the government step in and force an OS maker to make their private APIs open under some antitrust justification.

When IBM and AT&T, in particular, had to give way, the equivalent of APIs they regarded as private became public.

That was the nature of the remedy.

This "public versus private" is not some big barrier to anything. If the anti trust argument applies, then what is currently claimed to be public or private won't automatically have much to say with what ends up that way.

I should say, rather, I'm willing to assume for the sake of this argument that it might.

Certainly, any argument based on W8's market position, ahead of actual sales is, shall we say, equally guilty. I imagine most stating that don't really want to say that WOA won't achieve (say) 30 per cent of the market, which is probably thresh hold enough (especially given Apple's similar behavior) to trigger (in potential) anti-trust action. Anti-trust is about behavior; you need not have commanding market share, especially if the government sees oligopoly behavior.

Because the suitability of Metro to complex applications (Photoshop or Visual Studio, say) is totally undemonstrated, and there are, in my view, good reasons to be dubious about it.

My response to this is much like my response to the notion, last year, that Apple's new app store rules meant they were going to kick Netflix off of the platform. Platform vendors aren't suicidal, as a general rule. Microsoft isn't going to destroy Windows's ability to run complex apps. Either Metro will improve to the point where it can handle this, or the desktop environment will remain.

My guess is the desktop environment is going to be there for a long time. It's hard to imagine apps like Photoshop, Avid Media Composer or AutoCAD being re-implemented as Metro apps anytime soon regardless of Metro's technical suitability; developers in these sorts of markets tend to be very conservative, and their customers perhaps even more so.